PETALING JAYA: Bersatu’s decision to take legal action against six of its lawmakers for declaring support for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim may not hold up in court, according to experts.

       Tripatjit Singh explained that in such cases, the expressed support boiled down to intention.

       He said it may be the case where the MPs supported certain decisions of the unity government, but their support did not contradict the decisions of their party.

       “If so (it did contradict), it is wrong because as a candidate of your own party you must show support for your party’s decisions.

       “However, there is a gap because in order to be caught under the Anti-Hopping Law, there needs to be a jump between parties.

       “The Anti Hopping Law is billed to prevent elected representatives who have been voted in under a certain political party from hopping to an opposing party after securing the contested seat in a particular contingency,” he said.

       Tripatjit said the gap in the Anti-Hopping Law is whether a candidate can support decisions of other parties which contravened that of their own party.

       StarPicks

       Samsung takes epic to a whole new level with the Galaxy S24 Series

       Universiti Sains Malaysia senior lecturer Dr Azmil Mohd Tayeb said Bersatu only has a case if the MPs had signed explicit and enforceable agreement not to switch allegiance.

       “Amending the party constitution now and retroactively enforcing the new provision will not hold in court,” he said.

       Dr Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar of International Islamic University Malaysia said politically, the six MPs had stated that they remained Bersatu members.

       However, he said not following their party whip/party line suggested that they were disloyal to the party, adding that so far there has not been a case where they voted against the party line.

       “Should this happen, it is for the judiciary to determine whether the act of going against party line is tantamount to forfeiting their membership in the party,” he added.

       Lawyer Nizam Bashir Abdul Kariem Bashir however felt Bersatu might have a case, citing as a precedent the KL High Court’s decision in Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (suing as PKR secretary-general, for and on behalf of PKR) vs Zuraida Kamaruddin, which awarded RM10mil to the party for a suit brought against the latter for breach of bond.

       Zuraida had quit PKR in 2022 when she was then the Ampang MP.

       “When sued, it will not directly result in a nullification of the MP’s seat. However, the end result of a suit with a money claim will be a judgment for a monetary sum and when executed, it seems likely that the MP won’t be able to pay the same and may be adjudged a bankrupt as a consequence.

       “After the MP becomes an ‘undischarged bankrupt’, the indirect effect of the suit is that the MP will be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament pursuant to Article 48(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution,” he said.